Tannochsidebear

The big difference between us and Leeds is European football. Leeds were not in a qualifying position for Europe, far less the fortunes of the CL. We are, every season, likely to be in a position to qualify for the CL or EL and the money that goes with it. A liquidation of RFC means an AUTOMATIC 3 year Euro competition ban. Think what 3 years of no Euro football would do to our finances, the quality of player we could attract, and the outcome of the 3 years (and arguably more) SPL titles with us miles behind our biggest rivals. No need to worry about our 54 titles, proud history etc, think of the above. Liquidation is not necessary. It might be financially better for a purchaser at this time, but it would be undeniably bad news for the club and the fans for the next few years. This one point should be more than enough for all Rangers fans to agree with the "Show Liquidation the Red Card" display and thoughts behind it.

Correct, I told him that myself when he asked what he could do! I don't like DUFC getting any favours but this could and should have been done by the SFA without any fuss in mid Feb, and the same for any other clubs in the same spot.

I am sure you have all seen or read the media release from Mr Regan regarding our meeting last week. As expected, their picture of events is not accurate. The meeting was attended by 6 reps from the Rangers Fans Working Group, all very experienced at these meetings and the same group have been involved in successful and positive meetings with Assistant Chief Constable Corrigan, other Senior Police officers, Messrs Doncaster and Blair from the SPL, Rangers officials, lawyers, media experts, MPâ??s, MSPâ??s and many more, and never has our conduct been called into question. We have asked tough questions in a professional manner at all times, as is expected by the Rangers fans we try to represent to the best of our ability, and most professional people we have dealt with have been able to accept why we are asking such questions and give appropriate answers, and we have had to agree to disagree on many occasions in the past without anyone taking the huff and storming out. In view of the attack on our character by Mr Regan, we have decided to make public an extract from our internal report into the meeting, which was written after the meeting from extensive notes taken at the meeting. Below is the report and we ask you to make your own mind up about Mr Reganâ??s conduct. EXTRACT OF REPORT FROM MEETING WITH STEWART REGAN AT SFA ON 29 MARCH 2012 The meeting was going along fine for 45 mins discussing our work in the areas of the new legislation, and while he certainly was not as complimentary on our work as other parties have been, the meeting was fairly routine and amicable. SR, on taking up the position would have preferred the UEFA approach to offensive behaviour but is happy to go along the SPL approach for now. We discussed the pros and cons of this and we agreed to take matters further in other meetings. It was in the second part of the meeting that the atmosphere noticeably changed. We asked him about the fit and proper person rules and we discussed CW's breaking of these rules. He declared that he knew that CW had broken these rules in October after BBC documentary. That very week they started communications with CW's lawyers but they really got nowhere. SR declared that the breaking of these rules were facts, as proven in the BBC documentary and in follow-up enquiries. He stated that no interview with CW was required. However rather than press charges in October, he has waited until RFC are in administration. We asked why there was a need for Nimmo Smith's enquiry when SR had already declared as fact that CW was guilty, and why there was a 5 hour meeting going on that very same day when SR had just explained why CW was guilty to us in 10 mins. He said that if that was the way we were going to go there was no point continuing the meeting and slammed his notebook shut and stood up to leave. We were stunned at this petulant outburst but we managed to calm him down and continue. We went on to ask why the SFA were holding these enquiries at this time, when the info was 5 months old, and when Rangers has no working directors in a position to defend the club. He said there was no defence needed as the facts proved we were guilty of the breaches as charged. A new owner would not change the outcome. He asked him to see the difference between CW and the club. Our club had nobody other than CW to look over these things as he had got rid of all the other Directors and was essentially a one man show. SR stated that as Rangers was a plc, they would be held responsible in law for CWâ??s actions. We said that this was not a court of law but a football association and there should be a clear difference in the SFAâ??s actions between CW and RFC. He refused to accept this. We asked if the SFA would consider putting these cases off until a new owner was in place, or at least the summer, and were told it would make no real difference and SR actually tried to reason that it would be easier to sell the club with all this out the way. We replied that Murray managed to sell the club with the BTC hanging over us, and while that is still not resolved we look like being sold again so we didn't agree with his argument that the resolution of this case would help a sale. We then asked that as Scotlandâ??s most successful club, most famous club, the club that has provided most players to the national side and put the most money into the SFA coffers, what was the SFA doing to help us? He said he couldn't do anything to help Rangers any more than any other club. We asked again, have you done anything at all to help the club since Feb 14? He said he had taken some calls, perhaps half a dozen, from the administrators and been as helpful as he could be to them. We stated we were aghast that the CEO of the SFA had done nothing in his power to help the country's biggest club, apart from a few phone calls which were no doubt about technicalities and not assistance. He then asked us what we thought he should have done. We replied that they could have deferred all charges until after the club exited admin, that they could have offered to pay other SFA members what they were owed at this time out of the SFA's vast coffers, and agree repayment with Rangers either out of SFA/SPL prize money or the admin/new owners. Any help would not be forgotten by Rangers fans, and there could certainly have been a deal put in place with the club to guarantee repayment. He refused to consider these points and again stated that Rangers had breached articles and had to be punished accordingly. We said that there was a PERCEPTION amongst Rangers fans that the SFA were acting unsympathetically and were taking this opportunity to attack the club, and his answers to date at this meeting would not discourage those with this mindset. At this time he again got angry and stood up and said he wouldn't continue with the meeting if we were going to accuse him of bias. When it was pointed out that we were not doing this, merely pointing out that those we were representing would infer this, he sat down again, albeit temporarily. We then said that there were perhaps up to half a dozen clubs on the verge of admin/bankruptcy and we wanted the lessons of Rangers to be learned and that no fans of other clubs will have to go through what we have went through. We asked if he could confirm that if a Kilmarnock or Partick Thistle were to follow us into administration, that the SFA would immediately look to its articles to see if they had breached anything and could be charged, and would offer no help to these clubs whatsoever? SR didn't like this question and when he meekly responded that he was there to uphold the articles and take action accordingly, we said we didn't believe that answer was a viable one. He said he had had enough and stood up and started to walk towards one of our group to shake hands, and angrily remarked 'quell surprise' to nobody in particular. We were astonished and angered that he would show himself up in this way. That type of childish remark was grossly insulting and indicated that he had thought all along that we would be there to accuse him of bias, despite the fact that he had asked us directly three times if we were accusing him of bias and three times we had said we did not. That clearly was not enough. SR had clearly come into the meeting with a closed mind about what he was about to face, and in hindsight it is abundantly clear he was looking to get out of the meeting ASAP. SR was out the door and being closely followed by DB when on of our group called after him "away to report back to Lawwell?" It must be made abundantly clear that SR was already through the doorway, with DB close behind when this happened, so to say that that was the final straw is an outright lie, and we therefore call for Mr Regan to withdraw this accusation immediately and to apologise for his behaviour in storming out at a difficult question. Our member apologised to the rest of the group for this outburst but it was in sheer frustration at the indignant way SR had just conducted himself, and to the answers we got from him during the meeting which in our mind clearly state his intentions to hammer Rangers hard for CWâ??s lies.

A report of the meeting will be released later today. Safe to say that the SFA's version of events is about as accurate as Lennon's appraisal of a referee after a defeat.

You havent a clue what you are talking about, to be frank. At no time was it put to Regan that he was in cahoots with lawwell to have a go at Rangers. And please do not confuse the RFWG with the RFFF, they are very seperate bodies. The only similarity being that they are full of Rangers supporters giving up their own time to help the club and the fans. It easy to snipe from a position of ignorance.

Rangers Fans Working Group Statement Regan walks while fans talk. Stewart Regan, the Chief Executive of the SFA, disgracefully walked out of a meeting with the Rangers Fans Working Group at Hampden earlier today. Mr Regan was being closely questioned about the lack of practical help the SFA was rendering to one of it’s member clubs in administration. Earlier in the meeting he had twice threatened to walk out when his point of view was being challenged. The meeting with Mr Regan fell into two distinct parts. The first was to discuss the mechanisms for ensuring that the record of good behaviour by Rangers fans was encouraged by the implementation of standards and good practice across the board in Scottish football. The second was specifically to do with the treatment of Rangers whilst the club is in administration. It was put to Mr Regan that whilst the club is effectively decapitated during administration it was unfair that quasi-judicial proceedings were being undertaken when no new owners were in place and the firm of administrators in charge were unlikely to have the knowledge or commitment to ensure a vigorous defence of the club’s long-term interests. Similarly, it was noted that there was a widespread feeling amongst the Rangers support that the SFA administration was not impartial and that any sanctions taken against the club at this time were likely to be perceived as unfair. The Fans Working Group consider that our concerns were put forward in a sensible and helpful manner and are therefore both shocked and disappointed that Mr Regan chose to behave in such an unprofessional manner.

Or perhaps another way of spinning this is that he has been told his case is not too good, and he is trying to get his legals paid from us instead of taking his chances in court. I for one would be giving the dirty rat not one penny towards his legal fees, and would still want him to answer the many questions asked of him at the time, the main one being why he gave himself a new bumper contract with a huge termination clause just as the club was in the process of being bought out, and at the same time when savage cuts were being made all across the club? He doesnt fool me one bit.

There were 9 arrests at the match under the new legislation, but I dont have the breakdown between us and them. Another 10 were arrested, mainly for drink related offences although there was one arrest for assault. Typical Rhebel to spin it as only Rangers fans named when some simple research would have seen a more balanced response.

So at last the truth. It was celtic officials who knew Lennon could not be trusted to behave in the directors box and told him to go away. Lets not hear anything of safety, it was a decision based purely on Lennon's lack of class, dignity and respect and says more about the bigot from his own officials than we ever could.

I have always said it and will always continue to say it, the biggest difference between the two clubs is CLASS.

Lets not kid ourselves here, he is being written to instead of banned because their next game was at Ibrox. No ifs buts or maybes about it, its as clear as anything and as corrupt as anything.

The RFWG was set up by Monty from the Nithsdale RSC after the PSV game last season. He personally invited other Rangers fans who were known to represent all the main fans groups. There have been 2 mass meetings held at Ibrox with over 100 RSC reps in attendance. The actual names of those involved have been well documented and introduced to the meetings and in various discussions. At the moment there are 11 members of the committee representing individual RSC's, the RST, Assembly, Association, FF, RM, Gersnet, TBO, and the Rangers fans liaison officer. We have also had members from the Members Club and VB who have since left.

It was not the SPL who promoted the Kilmarnock case, it was the media. The SPL will only comment when asked as they really want to sweep all these things away. Funny how the media never followed up on the story though.

An excellant statement, and would love to see how the SPL defend it.

The day we start worrying about what a nobody like Dickinson thinks about our fans initiatives to raise money is, thankfully, a long way off. It say so very much more about him that it does about us. Im assuming Dickinson is generally "sad" after yesterday's result anyway, which is nice!

The match can easily be postponed until after the split and the title has been decided. The SPL are on record as saying this would never be allowed to happen, and the police also claimed they would never sanction a game with this much profile to happen again. Add in our administration worries, and the heat for this game can be easily excused to postpone it. I am 100% certain that if it were us going to the Piggery in a similar position, it would be off.

Of course this game should be cancelled under the SPL's own rules that there will never be another title decider between the OF. If it had been the other way around, this game would already be shelved.

I know they have said a minimum donation of £2 for the flag, but can you really see anyone putting in less than a fiver? I would expect this to raise £200K for the RFFF.

Today was merely a deadline for interested parties to declare their bids. However these bids will be heavily qualified, and the next few weeks will be spent between the Administrators and the bidders sorting out the fine print in the offers and meeting any conditions. I would think it will take at least 2-3 weeks before a preferred bidder status is announced, and another few weeks before any takeover is achieved. This is why it is so essential that the supporters back the RFFF in huge numbers as this will be a long road before any takeover is complete and administration has been finalised. There are only 4 home league games left this season. Given the number of ST holders we have, these games are not huge income generators, but we still have all our costs to meet during this period.

The thing is, even if Adam has no proof whatsoever of this, it has already been enough for the mhedia to force the SFA/SPL into another enquiry and more reams of paper wasted covering the (non) story. If he had evidence he would have come out with it in 2002 when he slaughtered Murray in the press after resigning. I fully agreed with Adam at that time, and if he had suggested (and proven) this at that time, the last decade could have been very different for our club. It stinks of sour grapes now and he has provided absolutely no foundation whatsoever. It might be true, and lets face it, it does reek of Murray's type of actions, but Murray is also clever enough to ensure there are no bodies to find.

This is quite bloody simple and I have to ask why some people are muddying the waters here. The SaveRangers campaign was launched to provide Paul Murray with an indication of how much could be raised in a share issue post-takeover to try to get him get his sums right. A survey, nothing more. The RFFF is to raise funds for Rangers to stay in business while the bidders and administrators sort out the mess and do a deal. It has the backing of the RSC's and the 3 main fans groups. This is the here and now and the only vehicle for Rangers supporters to help their club out at this time. If no Rangers fans put into this fund, the challenge to keept he club going until a buyer's deal is concluded is going to be very difficult indeed, even with the players wage cuts. Of course you get nothing for your donation other than the small matter of keeping the club we love in business, if that matters to anyone. I simply cannot understand anyone who says they will wait until they can get a share certificate to put up on the wall before they are willing to dig deep for The Rangers. The message should be put out loud and clear. Put your money into the RFFF as soon as you can. Forget all about the Save Rangers campaign and any potential share issues, as at the moment they are but one consortium's pipedream. Attend your local fundraisers when announced. Buy raffle tickets etc and lets try to get as much money as we can into the pot as we can to ensure not only our survival, but that something tangible can come out of it for all of us collectively, not individually.

My understanding was that the £1000 could be paid up over anything up to 24 months, making it £10 per week. You can obviously buy as many of the tier 1 shares at £1k a pop, or buy a tier 2 share at £100K, or a tier 3 share at £500K (was supposed to be £1M but that seems to have changed in the last couple of weeks!). So if you/your RSC RSC had a spare £5K to put in, it would be as 5 x Tier 1 shares. Obviously all this is purely hypothetical, and dependant on not only us getting out of Admin, but the BK being the successful bidders. I would prefer people put their money in NOW for no reward than wait to get something for their money. Are we seriously suggesting that Bears will not put money in to help the club in its darkest days because there is nothing to shove on the wall in recognition?

No idea at all im afraid. Just the word back from those close to the heart of things. The singapore mob was the least known of all interested parties, but it was confirmed that they had already spent a 6 figure sum and hired a top accy firm to do the background work for them. Not many people/businesses will pump 100K+ into a project if they had no intention of proceeding.

The adminstrators have been quite clear that in their opinion it can only be Whyte they have an issue with, and not the club.

I agree that there is doubt over the merits of putting money in without getting tickets or shares etc for it, and this is something I have argued for over the apst month. However as true as it is that the reports from fans of clubs in administration would tell you not to do it, I think in our case with the very complex ownership/creditor aspect, it is better we look at the present and worry about the future once we ensure that we have one!